Cotty wrote: > > On 27/11/05, Ann Sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >It is one thing to work up the light and stuff if > >you are taking > >a photo of something like, um, dare I say , a > >couple of green peppers > >but if you are photographing a person it might be > >nice to reveal something > >of their character instead of looking at their > >faces or hands as if they > >were simply an object. The shot of Truman is > >terrible. Nothing to do with > >his character at all, all to do with how cleverly > >the photgrapher can > >light him. It is al showing off the photgrapher's > >ego - not a portrait > >of Harry at all. feh > > I think that as a photographer you have to work through a variety of > styles and preferences along the way, and Newman was trying something > different. Obviously not all his work is the same. Later, he did lots of > stuff with the sitter as part of a larger design incorporating props or > other external design elements, and later still using collage, with bits > of a single image chopped up and reassembled. It's still a portrait in > my book. > In my book, only technically. Sorry Cotty, but what you are telling me in more detail about what Newman did really is just a kind of photography I don't care for. Note the difference between this kind of portraiture and the wonderful and revealing HCB stuff of equally famous folk.
> I think the shot of Truman is fantastic - to me it illustrates a > different way of looking at a face - one that had been photographed many > times previously (and since). I don't understand what is clever about > it. To me it's just different. :-) > > Cheers, > Cotty > Ah, Cotty, my luv, we just ain't goona meet on this one. I don't think it is so "different" even. I'm not much interested in people photos on the whole, anyway, but when I like 'em it is when I can see who they are, something about them, from the way the camera caught them - candid stuff grabs me, formal portraits just leave me cold. cheers 2, ann
